Letters: My special connection with the Artemis II mission
On a special mission to space
Larry Mitchell in his letter (April 6) was rather dismissive of the Artemis II mission and says it “struggles to live up to its hype”. He also says that the official title is banal and doesn’t convey any of the “childhood wonder we got from a Marvel comic space odyssey or an intergalactic voyage of The Space Family Robinson”.
Be that as it may, Nasa’s Artemis II mission is real life, not fiction, and has something a fantasy programme could never have.
On an SD card inside Rise, its zero-gravity indicator, are the names of 5,647,889 people, including mine, from around the world who sent in their name to be added to that SD card, and in return they received a boarding pass.
How cool is that?
Lorraine Kidd, Warkworth.
The problem with religion
Russell Hoban’s letter “Religion in time of faith and war” (April 6) hits the nail squarely on the head.
It is a tragedy that the three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam and Christianity) are often so vehemently blamed for the strife of humankind.
While religion is frequently referred to as justification for political upheaval, terrorism etc, it is really humankind’s use and abuse of religion for power-grabbing ends that causes the strife.
Religion, in this sense, really includes any doctrine or mindset that charismatic politicians can use and manipulate to induce the masses to support a particular political cause.
Graham Gillibrand, Browns Bay.
Message for Trumpism
The colossal cost of Donald Trump’s avoidable war in Iran must surely be the catalyst for the US Congress to show leadership and courage to address some fundamental weaknesses in the American democratic system.
President Trump is seeking Congressional approval for not only US$1.5 trillion ($2.6t) to fund his defence budget for 2027 but also a further US$200 billion to fund his war in Iran.
For the self-proclaimed President of peace and fiscal restraint and efficiency, this seems outrageous and the very definition of hypocrisy.
In a democracy, too much power in the hands of one person is problematic, but too much power in the hands of the wrong person can be disastrous.
The sitting President, also Commander-in-Chief (of the military), is demonstrably the wrong person. The US Constitution giving that power is 230 years old and desperately needs updating.
The “No Kings” movement is the voice of the people, and even if a timid Congress remains asleep at the wheel, the people will send a very powerful message to Trumpism in November.
Bruce Eliott, St Heliers.
Learning experience
Your correspondent David Hood (April 6) is right to say the education system in the 1950s aimed to sort out what children did and didn’t know, but appears not to realise that was not an entirely bad thing.
Where he is completely wrong is in saying that it was the primary aim.
What those earlier systems aimed to do was have the children acquire solid knowledge on a broad front and arm them with good communication skills, both written and oral. Also, that process didn’t just apply to would-be rocket scientists but also children with a bent for trades and arts.
Somewhere along the line, people erroneously labelled “educators” decided there were flaws in the system but unfortunately managed to throw out the baby and keep the bathwater.
A. Mahoney, Stanmore Bay.
A lesson from Istanbul
In Istanbul, cats move freely through the city, markets, stores and apartment courtyards, with residents leaving out food, water and small shelters when the weather turns cold. Cats are not thought of as strays; instead, they are treated as neighbourhood companions that everyone helps care for.
Couldn’t we at least treat our city’s homeless as well as the residents of Istanbul treat its cats?
Gary Carter, Gulf Harbour.
Age-old question
So Alain Bertaud, former World Bank urban planner, comes here from France to point out to us helpfully that most of Auckland’s character houses are “not that old, frankly, by European standards” (April 6).
So what? We judge our buildings and our history and what we want kept, by our own standards, not European ones.
His solution is to perhaps “preserve a historical street somewhere, as an example” but not entire neighbourhoods “just because it was built a long time ago”.
Setting aside the fact that no one in Auckland is trying to preserve entire neighbourhoods (just a few remaining pockets of heritage and character housing), can we take it he would apply this principle to Paris as well, and just preserve one street there, too, and demolish the rest of central Paris which was also built a long time ago and is renowned for its historic character?
If not, why not?
John Burns, chair of the Balmoral Residents Assn Inc.
- Go beyond the headlines with our daily news podcast The Front Page: